November arguments, day by day

Posted Mon, August 8th, 2011 3:15 pm by Lyle Denniston

The Supreme Court on Monday released the schedule of oral argument for the two-week sitting that begins on Monday, Oct. 31. There are no afternoon arguments scheduled for this period. Arguments last one hour, and begin at 10 a.m.

Following the jump, the arguments are listed day by day, with a summary of the issues involved.

Monday, Oct 31:

Lafler v. Cooper (10-209) — claim of ineffective assistance of defense lawyer for advice to reject a plea offer and either plead guilty or go to trial (new question on remedy added by the Court)

Missouri v. Frye (10-444) — issues parallel to those in Lafler; the cases are being argued in tandem by order of the Court

Tuesday, Nov. 1:

Rehberg v. Paulk (10-788) — scope of immunity for government official who initiates a criminal case then testifies falsely to a grand jury

Minneci v. Pollard (10-1104) — right to sue for damages for constitutional violations by private employees working for the government under contract

Wednesday, Nov. 2:

Perry v. New Hampshire (10-8974) — challenge to use of questionable eyewitness identification as criminal evidence

Gonzalez v. Thaler (10-895) — timing for appeal in federal habeas case after state conviction has become final

Monday. Nov. 7:

Zivotofsky v. Clinton (10-699) — political question as bar to test of State Department policy on recording foreign birth of citizen (question added by Court on Congress’s power to dictate policy on the issue)

Kawashima v. Holder (10-577) — may a non-citizen living legally in the U.S. be deported for making a false statement on a federal tax return

Tuesday, Nov. 8:

U.S. v. Jones ((10-1259) — constitutionality of warrantless police search with GPS tracking device on a vehicle (question added by Court on constitutionality of initially installing the GPS device)

Aug. 2015

In a conversation with Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Justice Samuel Alito reflects upon (among other things) his arrival on the Court, recent First Amendment cases, the themes in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, and his love for baseball.